ARGUMENT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE 


APPOINTED  TO  REPRESENT  THE 


ON  THE  SUIt J ECT  OF 


DIFFERENTIAL  RATES, 

BEFORE  THE 


Advisory  Commission”  of  the  Trunk-line  Railroads, 

AT  THEIR  SESSION  IN  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE. 


March  20th,  1882* 


BALTIMORE: 

Printed  by  John  Murphy  & Co. 

182  Baltimore  Street. 

1882. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/iargumentofcorTirnitOOcham 


i«$n 


S3  I 


3% 


<*. 

to 

to 


ARGUMENT. 


Gentlemen  of  the  Advisory  Commission  : 

Perhaps  no  more  embarrassing  position  can  be  assigned  to  any 
one  than  the  necessity  now  entailed  upon  us  through  the  logic  of 
late  events,  of  appearing  before  a commission  composed  of  gentle- 
men of  national  reputation  to  prove  a proposition  which  requires 
no  proof,  and  to  demonstrate  a problem  already  plain  to  the  most 
ordinary  intelligence.  It  seems  to  have  been  reserved  for  these 
latter  days  to  advance  the  claim  that  the  ordinary  rules  of  arith- 
metic are  no  longer  reliable,  and  that  600  miles  are  now  quite  as 
many  as  900  miles,  applying  the  outside  distance  to  the  commer- 
cial metropolis  of  the  country,  and  the  inside  to  an  energetic 
youthful  competitor  for  trade. 

After  the  arguments  to  which  you  have  doubtless  given  the 
closest  attention  for  the  past  two  weeks  it  is  hardly  necessary  to 
state  that  we  refer  to  the  late  demand  of  the  president  of  the  New 
York  Central  and  Hudson  River  Railroad  Co.,  endorsed  by  the 
q leading  commercial  organizations  of  the  city  of  New  York, 
that  the  rate  of  freight  shall  be  uniform  on  western  products  from 
p all  western  competing  points  of  departure  to  the  three  cities  of 
2H  New  York,  Philadelphia  and  Baltimore,  regardless  of  the  inter- 
vening distance  to  be  traversed,  and  this  rate  to  be  dictated  by  the 
authorities  of  the  longest  line  of  communication.  And  for  what 
end? — to  protect  the  trade  of  New  York . A proposition  so  sweep- 
ing in  its  demands  must  be  in  conflict  with  all  sound  public  policy 
— certainly  in  conflict  with  the  policy  which  has  governed  our 
railway  lines  for  half  a century — and  it  can  claim  no  support  from 
the  dictates  of  common  sense,  nor  is  it  flattering  to  the  intelligent 
judgment  of  the  merchants  of  the  city  of  New  York,  if  it  be  not 
sacrileye  to  express  that  opinion. 


3 


4 


Without  entering  into  any  detailed  statement  of  the  causes  or 
motives  which  have  culminated  in  the  creation  of  the  u Advisory 
Commission  ” — whether  it  be  treachery,  dishonesty,  or  incompati- 
bility of  temper  on  the  part  of  the  trunk-lines,  or  whether  it  be 
the  outcome  of  sharp  business  rivalry  between  merchants  of 
sea-board  cities,  each  competing  for  the  largest  proportion  of  the 
volume  of  business  uninterruptedly  flowing  eastward,  we  must 
call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  it  is  now  proposed  to  establish 
such  regulations  as  will  forever  debar  us  in  Baltimore  from 
gathering  any  of  the  fragments  which  might  under  other  circum- 
stances fall  by  the  wayside.  Whether  the  provoking  want  of 
harmony  between  the  trunk-lines  will  be  ameliorated  when 
supplemented  with  whatever  animosity  may  be  engendered  between 
merchants  through  the  threatened  disinheritance  of  Baltimore 
from  any  part  of  this  vast  estate  of  God’s  bounty  unceasingly 
afforded  for  the  use  and  maintenance  of  His  creatures,  is  prob- 
lematical. But  inasmuch  as  some  mutual  agreement  on  the 
subject  of  rates  to  the  sea-board  seems  to  have  become  a stern 
necessity  to  prevent  railroad  companies  from  self-destruction,  and 
as  we  in  Baltimore  are  good  citizens,  willing  to  surrender  to  the 
public  some  rights  which  are  inalienable — even  though  it  be  to 
protect  the  trade  of  the  city  of  New  York — and  inasmuch  as  each 
city  is  no  longer  to  rely  solely  upon  the  ability  of  its  own  lines  of 
transportation  to  serve  it  to  better  advantage  and  at  less 
relative  cost  than  competing  lines  can  serve  other  cities,  we  must 
insist  in  discussing  this  late  proposition  as  it  affects  the  city  of 
Baltimore,  upon  taking  into  the  account  all  the  conditions  existing 
here,  all  of  our  advantages  and  disadvantages,  all  items  of  distance, 
whether  from  the  point  of  production  or  from  distributive  markets 
in  Europe,  differences  in  ocean  freights,  as  well  as  the  question 
whether  if  we  and  our  railway  lines  were  not  forced  into  the 
trunk-line  compact  we  should  not  be  in  position,  unaided  from 
without,  to  defy  competition.  In  order  that  the  whole  question 
may  be  discussed  intelligently,  we  present  for  your  consideration 
the  following  propositions  : 

1st.  Our  advantage  in  our  shorter  distance  from  western  points 
must  be  recognized  in  any  arrangement  which  is  intended  to  be 


* 


5 


general , and  full  allowance  in  lower  rate  of  freight  must  be 
accorded  to  us  for  our  shorter  line  by 

185  miles  from  Chicago, 

349  “ “ St.  Louis, 

304  “ “ Louisville  and 

304  “ “ Cincinnati 

than  the  distance  of  these  points  from  the  city  of  New  York  by 
by  the  line  of  the  New  York  Central  and  Hudson  River  Railroad 
Co.,  from  the  president  of  which  proceeds  this  new  method  of 
adjusting  rates. 

2d.  As  we  are  so  much  nearer  western  trade  centres  and  the  pro- 
ducing territory  contiguous  to  them,  very  naturally  we  must  be 
more  remote  from  European  markets,  as  shown  by  the  200  miles 
intervening  between  us  and  the  ocean,  whilst  New  York  is  distant 
only  15  miles;  and  then  has  the  advantage  of  100  to  200  miles 
from  her  more  northerly  situation  for  all  vessels  bound  to  ports  of* the 
United  Kingdom.  For  this  disadvantage  to  the  port  of  Baltimore 
we  must  claim  under  any  general  freight  compact  an  allowance  for 
the  increased  rate  of  ocean  freight  to  us  as  compared  with  New 
York  ; and  we  must  demand  a further  liberal  allowance  for  the 
very  low  rates  of  freight  made  on  large  blocks  of  grain  on  the 
regular  lines  of  ocean  steamers  from  New  York,  which  rates  can 
never  be  duplicated  in  full  cargoes. 

3d.  We  must  insist  upon  an  equivalent  for  what  is  known  as  the 
free  delivery  system  in  the  city  of  New  York,  if  any  mutual  adjust- 
ment of  rates  is  to  prevail. 

4th.  This  late  demand  from  New  York  is  in  conflict  with  sound 
business  economy  in  so  far  as  it  will  be  damaging  to  the  revenues 
of  western  connecting  railroad  lines,  not  owned  or  controlled  by 
the  trunk-lines,  in  compelling  them  (the  western  neutral  lines)  to 
pro-rate  their  charges,  or  earnings,  with  the  longest  instead  of  the 
shortest  line,  as  they  practically  would,  under  existing  conditions, 
with  the  same  rate  of  freight  prevailing  to  Baltimore,  Philadelphia 
and  New  York. 


6 


5th.  We  dare  not  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  prior  to  the  devel- 
opment of  the  necessity  for  this  mutual  agreement  between  trunk- 
lines, Baltimore  was  drawing  western  products  to  her  wharves  at 
6 to  10  cents  per  100  pounds  less  than  New  York  rates,  whilst  our 
lines  are  now  ready  to  agree  upon  a difference  of  3 cents  per  100 
pounds;  and  further,  that  if  circumstances  would  permit  us  to  be 
again  placed  outside  of  the  trunk-line  compact,  more  advantageous 
rates  would  again  be  afforded  to  us  than  the  difference  of  8 cents 
per  100  pounds  now  claimed. 

6th.  This  demand  for  a uniform  rate  of  freight  to  and  from  the 
cities  of  New  York,  Philadelphia  and  Baltimore  is  in  defiance  of 
public  interests  and  public  policy,  by  entailing  upon  the  commu- 
nity at  large  unnecessary  charges  for  transportation  of  their  pro- 
ducts, and  by  practically  depriving  them  of  choice  of  markets;  and 
further,  by  unjust  discrimination  against  Baltimore  as  a port  of 
entry,  where  facilities  and  economies  for  handling  imports  are  in 
marked  contrast  with  the  port  of  New  York. 

Now  some  of  the  embarrassment  of  which  we  spoke  a moment 
ago  comes  upon  us  right  here  in  the  discussion  of  the  first  propo- 
sition ; and  when  we  propose  to  incorporate  with  it  the  anxiety  of 
our  fellow  merchant  in  New  York  to  get  that  Baltimore  and  Ohio 
train  up  to  the  altitude  of  2,600  feet,  some  1,700  feet  higher  than 
New  York  Central  trains  are  elevated,  the  difficulty  may  become 
appalling.  But  as  he  has  gone  to  the  trouble  of  placing  the  train 
on  the  top  of  the  mountain,  we  anticipate  little  or  none  in  getting 
it  down  again  to  the  New  York  level.  In  discussing  this  branch 
of  the  question  we  shall  go  straight  to  the  New  York  fountain 
head  for  our  evidence,  using  none  except  that  given  to  the  public 
by  men  who  are  in  position  to  know  all  about  it.  And  although 
these  discussions  to  which  your  attention  has  been  directed  have 
been  intended  for  our  funeral,  we  may  yet  be  able  to  convince  you 
that  Baltimore  as  a corpse  presents  some  decided  symptoms  of 
vitality. 

Mr.  Wm.  H.  Vanderbilt  in  his  testimony  before  the  “ Special 
Assembly  Committee  of  Railroads”  at  Saratoga  Springs,  August 
20th,  1879,  on  page  1,244,  says,  “I  mean  this;  I mean  that  other 
roads  would  not  submit  to  having  the  same  rate  fixed  to  New  York 


as  was  fixed  to  Baltimore  and  Philadelphia.”  In  answer  to  the 
question:  “ Suppose  they  did  not  submit;  what  could  they  do,” 
he  replies,  “ They  would  carry  the  freight  so  low  that  we  could 
not  get  a cent  for  it,  and  then  the  question  would  come,  whether 
they  could  carry  cheaper  to  Philadelphia  and  Baltimore,  or  we  to 
New  York ; and  there  is  no  reason  why  they  should  not  carry  it 
just  as  cheap  as  we  should.”  Question . As  you  to  New  York? 
Answer.  As  we  should  to  Baltimore,  the  same  distance ; they  have 
always  claimed,  and  claim  still,  that  their  advantages  in  coal  and 
other  expenses  more  than  offset  all  the  advantages  we  have — and 
it  is  a very  serious  question  whether  it  does  not. 

Question.  Do  you  think  it  offsets  the  value  of  your  traffic? 
Answer.  The  volume  of  their  traffic  is  as  large  as  ours. 

On  page  1,258  under  date  of  August  21st.  In  answer  to  the 
question  whether  the  Grand  Trunk  railroad  was  not  a formidable 
adversary  to  him,  he  replies,  “ they  were  trying  to  compete  with 
us  on  200  miles  greater  distance — the  same  as  you  would  have  us 
do  with  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio.” 

On  page  1,675,  Mr.  Vanderbilt  says,  “I  think  the  railroads 
have  done  their  full  share  towards  the  prosperity  of  the  city  of 
New  York,  from  the  very  fact  that  we  are  transporting  goods  in 
competition  with  other  roads  200  miles  further  for  2 cents  more, 
300  miles  further  than  Baltimore  is;  and  the  great  demand  made 
by  the  merchants  was  that  we  should  do  the  business  and  carry  the 
goods  to  New  York  at  the  same  price  that  they  would  to  Baltimore 
and  Philadelphia.” 

Question.  Why  not?  Answer.  “ Every  reason  in  the  world 
why  not — it  would  lead  to  a war  of  extermination  of'  the  roads ; 
if  we  survive  and  cripple  them,  they  would  go  to  Congress,  there 
would  then  be  a war  of  extermination  of  the  whole  United  States 
against  us;  they  would  not  permit  us  to  live — they  would  go  to 
Congress  about  it.” 

Question.  The  merchants  of  New  York  think  you  have  so  much 
advantage  in  your  superior  gradient  and  our  larger  local  traffic 
that  they  ought  to  have  equal  rates  with  the  others?  Answer. 
That  is  a mistake;  look  at  the  reports  of  the  New  York  Central 
and  the  Pennsylvania  roads ; they  do  their  business  at  a less  cost 
than  we  do ; the  reports  show  it. 

Whether  the  testimony  of  Wm.  II.  Vanderbilt  in  1879,  will 
support  the  demand  made  by  the  president  of  the  New  York  Cen- 


8 


tral  anil  Hudson  River  Railroad,  and  by  the  merchants  of  the 
city  of  New  York,  in  1882,  we  leave  for  you  to  determine. 

We  come  now  to  the  testimony  before  the  same  committee,  of 
Mr.  Hugh  J.  Jewett,  the  President  of  the  New  York  Lake  Erie 
and  Western  Railroad — formerly  the  New  York  and  Erie  Railroad, 
under  date  of  August  25,  1879,  at  Saratoga  Springs.  Question. 
Hav’nt  you  agreed  on  behalf  of  the  Erie  Railway  Company  to  an 
arbitrary  rate  which  makes  a constant  difference  as  against  New 
York  in  favor  of  Philadelphia  and  Baltimore  of  respectively  2 
and  3 cents  a hundred?  Ansiver.  Yes,  sir;  we  have  made  that 
and  thought  we  were  very  successful  when  we  got  it  reduced  from 
6,  8 and  10.  Question.  Do  you  do  it  on  the  mileage  theory? 
Answer.  Oh,  no;  if  we  made  it  on  the  mileage  theory  they  would 
have,  I think,  on  St.  Louis,  26 — well  it  would  be  four  or  five 
times  what  it  is. 

Perhaps  no  statement  from  any  source  could  show  in  so  few 
words  how  much  Baltimore  has  already  suffered  by  being  included 
in  this  trunk-line  compact,  and  yet  the  “ horse-leech  ” still  cries 
give  ! give  ! ! Shall  we  go  on  giving,  giving  until  our  patrimony 
descended  from  heaven  to  our  fathers,  and  from  them  to  us  is 
exhausted?  Have  our  friends  in  New  York  estimated  the  cost 
of  this  warfare  before  they  entered  into  it? 

Mr.  Jewett,  in  answer  to  the  question  on  page  1,493,  “Is  it 
true  that  New  York  city  is  now  losing  its  business  ?”  Answer. 
I think  it  is.  Question.  By  reason  of  the  shorter  distance 
between  New  York  and  Philadelphia  and  the  western  centres? 
Answer.  By  reason  of  the  efforts  of  those  cities  to  increase  their 
trade,  and  by  reason  of  the  cooperation  between  their  railroads 
and  those  cities  in  building  it  up,  and  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  their 
distance  does  reduce  the  actual  expense.  Question.  Isn’t  the 
gradient  of  the  New  York  Central  very  far  superior  to  that  of 
any  of  the  other  roads?  Answer.  The  gradients  of  the  New  York 
Central  road  are  less  than  either  of  the  other  roads,  but  on  the 
Pennsylvania  Railroad  their  grades  are  concentrated — they  are  all 
at  one  point,  so  they  can  help  without  serious  expense. 

Question.  Supplemental  power?  Answer.  “Yes  sir;  in  New 
York  it  is  in  little  hills,  here,  there  and  other  places  which  affect 
the  power  over  the  entire  line;  the  grades  of  the  Baltimore  and 
Ohio  are  spread  out,  but  as  a matter  of  expense  of  operating,  the 


9 


Baltimore  and  Ohio  Road  is  the  cheapest  road  of  the  trunk-lines  to 
operate , from  the  fact  that  it  runs  a great  portion  of  its  distance 
through  a most  valuable  coal-field  ; whilst  the  New  York  Central 
is  paying  three,  or  four  or  five  dollars  a ton  for  its  coal,  the 
Baltimore  and  Ohio  can  bring  it  right  out  of  the  pit  and  dump  it 
into  the  car  of  the  engine  at  a cost  possibly  of  80  to  90  cents  a ton: 
the  advantage  it  has  in  fuel  far  overbalances  any  advantage  the 
New  York  Central  may  have  in  grades.” 

This  advantage  of  cheap  coal  as  an  element  in  motive  power  we 
trust  will  demonstrate  to  our  New  York  friends  precisely  how  it 
is  that  we  overcome  altitudes  with  any  existing  gradient  leading 
to  them,  and  why  we  can  so  readily  move  freight  and  passengers 
with  more  facility  and  less  expense  than  they  can  show.  And  we 
tell  you  further,  gentlemen,  it  is  not  probable  that  the  Baltimore 
and  Ohio  Railroad  Company  would  to-day  surrender  its  mountain 
grades  with  the  cheap  fuel  furnished  them  at  almost  any  point  for 
more  than  100  miles  in  distance,  and  the  immense  traffic  afforded 
them  in  the  transportation  of  this  coal  for  others,  for  an  equal  slice 
of  territory  with  grades  even  less  than  those  of  New  York  roads, 
without  the  coal. 

We  come  now  to  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Geo.  R.  Blanchard, 
for  six  years  general  freight  agent  of  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio 
Railroad  Company,  next  general  freight  agent  of  the  Erie  Railroad 
Company,  then  assistant  to  the  president  of  that  company,  and  now 
one  of  its  vice-presidents.  Surely  we  have  in  him  one  who  is  abun- 
dantly qualified  to  speak  on  the  subject.  On  page  3,193  of  the  tes- 
timony taken  by  the  legislative  committee  of  the  state  of  New 
York,  Mr.  Blanchard  says,  “ Disregarding  all  matters  of  grade, 
curvature,  labor,  iron,  bridges,  tunnels,  and  everything  else, 
disregarding  all  this  trash,  is  there  anybody  who  can  say  that 
with  coal  delivered  to  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  at  90  cents  per 
ton,  while  our  lowest  price  is  $2;  that  with  a difference  in  their 
favor  of  200  miles  in  distance,  that  with  cross-ties  purchased  in 
the  mountains  of  West  Virginia  at  one-half  the  money  we  have 
to  pay,  that  with  all  these  differences  and  disabilities  we  can  carry 
this  extra  distance  for  nothing,  and  then  show  the  same  result  per 
ton  per  mile  on  the  whole  distance?  It  is  the  most  misleading 
suggestion  that  can  possibly  be  submitted  to  the  committee.” 
Again.  On  page  3,175,  in  referring  to  an  instance  in  which  flour 
2 


10 


was  to  be  carried  272  miles  farther  to  New  York  than  if  sent  to 
Baltimore,  Mr.  Blanchard,  now  a vice-president  of  one  of  the  New 
York  trunk-lines , says:  “ We  are  not  called  upon  by  any  mercantile 
principle  or  usage  to  carry  that  extra  distance  for  nothing,  and 
there  are  no  272  miles  of  railroad  that  can  be  built  for  nothing, 
can  be  worked  for  nothing,  that  should  be  given  to  the  public  for 
nothing.” 

This  testimony  of  the  president  of  one  New  York  trunk-line, 
and  the  president  and  vice-president  of  the  other  supports  our 
proposition  so  earnestly  and  strikingly  that  we  are  compelled  to 
infer  that  our  advantages  in  distance  are  such  that  they  cannot  be 
overcome  by  anything  which  New  York  has  thus  far  presented  in 
the  line  of  railway  communication,  and  that  there  is  nothing  in 
our  difficult  grades  which  redounds  to  the  advantage  of  New  York. 

Having  disposed  of  the  argument  of  our  metropolitan  friends 
against  our  grades , we  come  now  to  some  general  features  of  the 
subject,  and  in  order  that  we  may  the  better  appreciate  the 
wretched  tenure  under  which  New  York  merchants  endeavor  to 
maintain  their  demands,  we  have  to  traverse  ground  already 
familiar  to  you,  but  we  shall  reproduce  some  scraps  of  history. 

We  have  never  believed  any  consignation  between  the  trunk- 
lines to  be  advantageous  to  the  city  of  Baltimore  nor  to  the  great 
producing  territory  tributary  to  it.  The  country  wants  and  should 
have  fair  competition  between  railroads.  The  Baltimore  and  Ohio 
Railroad  was  constructed  by  the  capital  and  credit  of  our  city  in 
its  corporate  capacity,  and  by  our  citizens,  for  the  very  purpose  of 
opening  a shorter  route  to  and  through  Baltimore  than  any  which 
did  or  could  exist  to  other  cities.  We  claim  that  we  are  entitled 
to  the  benefit  of  every  advantage  which  this  feature  can  furnish  to 
us,  and  on  sound  business  principles  we  claim  the  right  to 
protest  against  any  combination  whereby  the  parties  thereto  are  to 
be  benefited  and  the  public  oppressed.  Does  it  follow  that  if 
railroad  companies  are  conducting  their  business  independently — 
outside  of  mutual  compact  or  agreement — that  they  will  drift  into 
ruinous  competition?  Will  not  the  wishes  and  demands  of  stock- 
holders ultimately  compel  them  to  conduct  their  traffic  upon  such 
basis  as  will  return  a fair  equivalent  for  the  capital  invested  in 
them  ? Have  not  railroad  wars  more  than  once  been  resorted  to 
in  order  that  better  terms  might  be  made  in  a contemplated  new 


11 


pooling  arrangement?  If  fair  competition  in  these  days  of  stock- 
jobbing  is  amongst  the  possibilities,  we  shall  have  no  misgivings 
about  Baltimore,  receiving  her  full  proportion  of  trade  at  all  times. 

No  pooling  arrangement  can  be  permanent  which  does  not 
recognize  the  claims  and  advantages  of  cities  nearest  to  the  point 
of  production.  Capital  invested  in  our  railroads  will  become 
restive  under  any  arrangement  which  discards  this  principle.  Nor 
will  the  citizens  of  Baltimore  and  of  the  western  States  suffer  our 
business  to  be  destroyed,  nor  this  outlet  for  trade  closed  against 
them  if  it  be  in  their  power  to  prevent  it.  New  and  cheaper 
outlets  are  constantly  sought  by  the  owners  of  products,  and 
Congress  is  constantly  importuned  to  pass  laws  regulating  inter- 
state traffic.  Whilst  we  prefer  to  see  railroad  companies  conduct- 
ing their  business  without  restrictions  of  the  law  to  guide  them, 
still  we  cannot  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  any  combination  which 
incorporates  into  its  provisions  the  present  demand  from  New 
York  is  a standing  invitation  for  congressional  interference. 
Merchants  of  that  city  seem  to  have  but  a slender  appreciation 
of  the  intelligence  and  power  of  the  citizens  of  the  west,  north- 
west and  south-west,  who  have  so  vital  an  interest  in  economical 
transportation,  and  they  seem  to  have  lost  sight  of  all  except  New 
York  itself,  in  this  their  last  demand.  Sea-board  cities  are 
practically  consumptive  markets  for  products  of  the  west,  for  the 
price  of  that  which  is  exported  establishes  the  value  of  that  used 
for  home  consumption.  The  importance  of  this  factor  can  be 
more  fully  appreciated  when  we  state  that  94  per  cent,  of  the  corn 
crop  of  the  country  is  consumed  at  home,  yet  the  6 per  cent, 
exported  establishes  the  price  of  the  balance. 

It  is  a matter  of  vital  importance  that  the  producer  shall  receive 
the  best  net  result  from  the  sale  of  his  products.  This  depends 
materially  upon  the  rate  of  freight  to  the  sea-board,  upon  terminal 
charges  there  and  the  current  rate  of  ocean  freight.  This  fact 
was  recognized  by  the  New  York  lines  previous  to  the  year  1870, 
when  a differential  rate  of  $2  per  ton  was  allowed  in  favor  of 
Baltimore,  for  the  reason  uthat  transportation  from  Baltimore  and 
Philadelphia  to  foreign  markets  cost  more  than  from  New  York.” 
The  same  features  still  exist,  and  the  producer  will  investigate 
very  closely  to  ascertain  what  proportion  of  the  value  of  his  crop 
is  paid  to  the  foreign  ship  owner,  and  to  determine  whether  rail 


12 


freights  to  the  sea-board  are  based  upon  the  distance  traversed, 
that  he  may  have  an  equivalent  for  any  lower  price  prevailing  at 
any  point. 

Before  the  advent  of  the  pooling  system,  or  before  any  combina- 
tion was  entered  into  by  the  trunk-lines  to  maintain  differential 
rates,  Baltimore  received  western  grain  at  10  cents  per  hundred 
pounds  less  than  was  charged  to  New  York  by  the  northern  lines. 
Our  lines  then  established  rates  to  suit  themselves.  We  presume 
under  these  circumstances  they  arranged  for  a fair  margin  of 
profit  over  the  cost  of  transportation.  This  soon  became  unsatis- 
factory to  New  York,  and  the  result  was  a war  of  rates  between 
railroads.  Finding  that  transportation  at  ruinous  rates  was 
damaging  to  revenue,  a compromise  was  entered  into,  our  roads 
consenting  to  a differential  of  5 cents  in  our  favor.  Still  Balti- 
more continued  to  build  up  a handsome  and  constantly  increasing 
grain  trade.  Again  New  York  looked  upon  us  with  jealousy,  and 
then  came  another  war  of  rates,  continued  until  all  the  trunk-lines 
were  willing  to  quit.  Naturally  the  compromise  came  next  and 
Baltimore  received  her  differential  of  3 cents  per  hundred  pounds. 
Under  the  new  arrangement  Baltimore  persistently  continued  to 
attract  a handsome  grain  trade.  This  was  still  unsatisfactory  to 
New  York,  but  worked  for  a time,  when  war  was  again  proclaimed. 
And  now  comes  the  demand  for  equal  freights  to  New  York  and 
Baltimore  from  all  western  points.  This  irrepressible  little  rival 
must  be  expunged  even  if  the  New  York  rate  must  be  made  less 
than  ours  to  accomplish  it.  Under  these  circumstances  do  they 
still  propose  to  continue  their  free  delivery  system,  and  maintain 
their  elevator  charges  at  J cent  per  bushel  whilst  ours  are  1J? 
We  presume  they  will  presently  reach  the  point  at  which  they 
propose  to  draw  the  veil  of  oblivion  upon  us. 

Assuming  32  J cents  per  100  pounds  as  the  average  rate  of  freight 
during  the  year  1880,  between  Chicago  and  New  York,  then  Bal- 
timore’s rate  under  the  existing  compact  would  be  29J  cents. 
Upon  the  theory  of  mileage , Baltimore  would  be  entitled  to  a 
difference  of  5t7q8^  cents  per  100  pounds.  On  relative  mileage  from 
Cincinnati  we  should  be  entitled  to  a difference  of  9J  cents  per  100 
pounds,  and  from  St.  Louis  to  a difference  of  9yV  cents  per  100 
pounds,  instead  of  the  established  differential  of  3 cents  per  100 
pounds.  These  estimates  are  all  based  on  the  average  distance  by 


13 


the  three  lines  to  New  York.  If  we  use  the  distance  via  the  New 
York  Central  to  New  York,  and  via  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  to 
Baltimore,  the  injustice  already  done  us  in  our  allotted  rate 
becomes  decidedly  more  glaring.  The  very  grave  question  arises 
here — does  justice  to  ourselves,  a proper  regard  for  the  interests  of 
those  who  prefer  to  market  their  products  in  Baltimore,  and  a just 
appreciation  of  the  natural  advantages  of  our  city  for  business, 
whether  foreign  or  domestic,  do  all  these,  or  any  one  of  them,  call 
upon  us  to  surrender  anything  whatever,  and  how  long  can  we  be 
justified  in  our  tacit  acceptance  of  the  three  cent  differential  to  pre- 
serve the  trunk-lines  from  destruction.  Are  we  not  indirectly  paying  a 
subsidy  to  New  York  by  foolishly  consenting  to  throw  away 
advantages  which  that  city  cannot  otherwise  overcome?  Does 
New  York  hold  a mortgage  upon  the  trade  of  the  Western  States? 
Shall  no  other  city  be  permitted  to  take  a second  lien  upon  it? 
Are  not  some  of  those  western  trade  centres  inclined  to  look  upon 
Baltimore  as  a preferred  creditor,  or  aspirant  for  their  business? 

It  is  very  evident  that  New  York  has  some  advantages  which 
more  than  compensate  her  for  the  3 cent  differential  made  in  our 
favor.  Summarising  the  results  as  shown  by  Statement  A.  here- 
unto appended  which  sets  forth  the  differences  in  prices  of  wheat 
and  corn  in  New  York  and  Baltimore  for  each  of  the  four  years 
from  1878  to  1881,  inclusive,  we  find  that  for  the  four  years  wheat 
averaged  2fW  cents  per  bushel,  or  4f\  cents  per  100  pounds, 
higher,  and  that  corn  for  the  same  four  years  averaged  lT2o2o  cents 
per  bushel,  or  2xy^  cents  per  100  pounds  higher  than  in  Baltimore. 
Now  if  we  take  the  winter  months  when  canal  navigation  is  sus- 
pended and  when  both  cities  are  dependent  upon  railroad  trans- 
portation, we  find  wheat  to  average  3t2q2^  cents  per  bushel,  or  5-nn> 
cents  per  100  pounds  higher,  and  corn  2xy^  cents  per  bushel,  or 
4xy*  cents  per  100  pounds  higher  than  in  Baltimore. 

Now  why  can  New  York  afford  to  pay  more  for  grain  than  we 
can  in  Baltimore?  Lower  rates  of  ocean  freight  prevail  there, 
they  have  “free  delivery  ” to  any  point  in  the  harbor  by  the  rail- 
road companies,  their  elevator  charges  for  receiving  and  delivering 
are  one  quarter  of  one  cent  per  bushel,  whilst  ours  are  one  and  one 
quarter  cents,  their  regular  line  steamers  carry  grain  to  Europe  at 
rates  which  we  cannot  duplicate.  And  they  have  a further  large 
supply  of  all  classes  of  tonnage,  both  steam  and  sail,  bringing 


14 


to  that  city  articles  which  enter  into  their  import  trade.  Free 
from  the  obligations  of  a railroad  combination,  we  are  willing  to 
test  our  ability  to  cope  with  them  in  the  business  of  exporting 
grain.  Bound  by  the  terms  of  the  combination  we  must  ask  that 
due  allowance  be  made  to  us  for  all  these  advantages  to  them. 

We  beg  also  to  call  your  attention  to  statements  marked  K and 
L of  Commissioner  Fink,  in  his  report  to  the  trunk-line  railroads, 
in  which  he  shows  the  relative  cost  of  transporting  grain  from 
the  western  States  to  Europe,  via  Baltimore  and  via  New  York. 

The  inexcusable  wrong  already  done  us,  as  exhibited  in  those 
statistical  reports,  certainly  demands  official  and  impartial  inves- 
tigation ere  any  further  injustice  be  proposed. 

Taking  into  the  account  the  free  delivery  system  existing  there, 
the  cost  of  which,  to  the  extent  of  3 cents  per  hundred  pounds,  is 
charged  back  against  the  railroad  companies  concerned  in  the 
transportation  of  the  articles  entering  into  that  free  delivery  we 
find  that  their  rate  of  freight  from  western  points  is  already  the 
same  as  ours,  and  that  we  have  been  and  are  even  now  contending 
against  all  the  other  advantages  which  they  possess  over  and 
above  us. 

If  this  demand  from  the  city  of  New  York  for  continued 
further  favors  from  the  railroads  of  the  country  be  not  promptly 
throttled,  a counter  demand  will  spring  up  in  neighboring  cities 
that  their  own  railroads  shall  fulfil  the  demands  and  expectations 
of  the  communities  which  built  them.  There  are  some  interests 
and  obligations  outside  of  those  whose  fullest  joy  is  manifested  in 
a game  of  shuttle-cock  with  the  millions  invested  in  the  railroad 
property  of  the  country. 

But  there  are  other  interests  involved  in  this  question  of 
differentials  than  those  of  the  trunk-lines — interests  away  beyond 
the  cities  of  New  York,  Philadelphia  and  Baltimore.  There  are 
railroads  and  some  population  also  in  the  Mississippi  and  Ohio 
Valleys  which  are  affected  directly  by  any  demand  which  attempts 
to  force  trade  into  arbitrary  channels.  Let  us  turn  now  to  propo- 
sitions 4 and  6,  which  we  shall  endeavor  to  discuss  together  and 
as  briefly  as  possible. 

On  all  consignments  of  freight  for  which  free  delivery  to  any 
part  of  the  harbor  of  New  York  is  required,  Mr.  Blanchard  says 
in  his  testimony  before  the  special  railroad  committee  of  the  New 


15 


York  General  Assembly,  on  page  3,223,  “ there  shall  be  deducted 
from  the  through  price  3 cents  per  hundred  pounds,”  and  that 
upon  these  free  deliveries  they  compel  all  western  neutral  roads 
to  prorate  this  3 cents  per  hundred  pounds.  On  page  3,224,  he 
states  that  “of  our  whole  business  more  than  80  per  cent,  is  made 
on  these  special  deliveries.”  Now  in  Baltimore,  we  have  no  free 
delivery  system,  and  neutral  roads  are  taxed  nothing  for  that  item. 
But  if  you  surrender  to  the  port  of  New  York  in  all  its  demands, 
with  its  free  delivery  system,  allow  them  to  tax  western  neutral 
roads  for  their  proportion  of  the  expense  of  free  delivery,  give 
them  the  advantage  of  lower  ocean  freights,  which  they  always 
have,  and  allow  us  nothing  for  it,  allow  us  nothing  for  our  dis- 
tance of  200  miles  from  the  ocean  as  against  their  15,  and  you 
will  forever  drive  grain  to  them,  because  they  can  pay  more  for  it. 
Now  what  becomes  of  the  neutral  road  in  the  west  under  these 
conditions?  On  page  3,195,  Mr.  Blanchard  says  “that  under 
present  conditions  every  neutral  company  in  the  west,  even  at  the 
present  difference  of  3 cents,  is  receiving  a larger  amount  of 
money  per  hundred  pounds  by  sending  their  business  to  Baltimore 
than  if  they  sent  it  to  New  York;  and  that  Baltimore  always 
pays  them  the  best  rate  per  ton  per  mile,  even  though  the  rate  is 
made  from  Chicago  to  New  York,  between  which  points  the  dif- 
ference in  distance  is  less  than  from  other  western  grain  centres. 
The  neutral  road  gets  a larger  proportion  of  the  mileage  from  any 
western  point  when  sending  its  business  over  the  Baltimore  and 
Ohio  Railroad  than  if  it  was  sent  to  New  York.” 

This  proposed  “Trades  Union  ” demanded  by  New  York  lines, 
or  the  New  York  merchants — we  care  not  which — tor,  it  is  dis- 
creditable alike  to  both,  aims  now  to  annul,  abrogate,  obliterate  all 
these  advantages  which  western  lines  now  have,  to  engulf 
Baltimore  in  the  common  destruction,  and  under  a general  order 
force  all  to  pay  tribute  to  her  coffers — or,  as  one  of  their  advocates 
put  it  before  you  two  weeks  ago — to  her  greatness. 

Is  it  to  be  supposed  for  a moment  that  the  population  of  the 
vast  extent  of  country  served  by  the  four  great  trunk  lines,  has 
not  the  intelligence  to  discern  the  tendency  of  our  railroad  system 
to  develop  the  most  gigantic  centralization  of  power  of  modern 
times,  as  the  ultimate  outcome  of  greed  for  that  to  which  they  are 
not  entitled  ? Is  it  to  the  interest  of  that  population  or  any  other 


16 


whose  trade  may  be  affected  by  compacts,  that  there  shall  be  but 
one  rate  of  freight  to  the  seaboard  irrespective  of  the  point  to  be 
reached,  and  that  rate  to  be  established  by  New  York  city  and 
her  railroads  ? Nature  gave  to  us  our  great  lakes  and  rivers,  not 
all  emptying  into  the  Atlantic  at  the  port  of  New  York,  not  all 
leading  in  the  same  direction,  none  of  them  making  abortive 
attempts  to  force  an  unnatural  passage  nor  to  float  upon  their  sur- 
face anything  elsewhere  than  in  its  natural  course,  but  each  one 
having  its  own  peculiar  mission  to  perform  and  its  own  district  to 
serve.  No  pools,  nor  combinations,  nor  differentials,  nor  tres- 
passing there ! To  the  reflecting  mind  it  would  seem  that  each 
one  of  the  trunk-lines  has  also  its  mission  allotted  to  it.  Certainly 
they  were  constructed  with  that  end  in  view.  Was  the  New  York 
Central  constructed  to  build  up  Baltimore?  or  the  Baltimore  and 
Ohio  to  build  up  New  York?  Is  there  any  feature  in  the 
geography  of  the  United  States  which  constitutes  the  New  York 
Central  the  key  to  the  traffic  of  the  country  ? Is  there  any  prin- 
ciple enunciated  in  political  economy  which  can  justify  its  dictation 
or  that  of  its  terminal  city,  of  the  price  to  be  paid  for  transporting 
the  products  of  an  empire  to  distributing  markets?  Dare  we  adopt 
that  principle  in  conducting  the  transportation  business  of  the 
country?  We  appreciate  the  greatness  of  the  city  of  New  York, 
its  marvelous  progress  and  growth,  its  importance  as  a centre  of 
wealth  and  trade,  but  she  sits  not  so  high  in  royal  arrogance  that 
she  may  say — ■“  there  shall  be  no  gateway  to  the  sea  except  through 
my  portals.”  Protest  against  this  has  already  gone  up  from  the 
Mississippi  to  the  Chesapeake,  and  with  it  has  come  golden  grain 
to  be  exported  through  the  port  of  Baltimore,  through  the  port 
of  Baltimore  because  nature  directed  the  way  and  outlet. 

This  attempted  concentration  of  power,  this  attempted  dictation 
of  terms,  of  price  and  of  market,  this  attempt  to  control  the 
direction  which  the  products  of  the  country  shall  take  fore- 
shadows something  the  significance  of  which  has  not  yet  been 
fully  grasped  by  the  public  in  any  or  all  of  the  controversies  and 
arguments  on  the  subject  of  differential  rates,  pools,  compacts  or 
trunk-line  agreements.  And  it  bodes  no  good  to  the  western 
producer.  The  demand  which  proposes  arbitrarily  to  blot  out  all 
advantages  in  distance  and  location  will  be  sharpened  whenever 
some  other  designs  can  be  concealed  under  the  pretext  that  the 


17 


trade  of  New  Yorlc  must  be  protected.  Pardon  us  for  introducing 
here  an  extract  from  the  Cincinnati  Gazette,  in  which  the  real 
merits  of  the  controversy  are  fully  and  accurately  detailed,  whilst 
at  the  same  time  we  regard  it  as  a correct  exponent  of  western 
sentiment  on  this  subject : 

“But,  assuming  that  Mr.Vanderbilt  tells  the  truth,  and  that  his 
real  object  is  to  protect  the  trade  of  New  York,  let  us  look  at  the 
matter.  If  this  is  his  purpose,  it  is  a war  of  three  cities  rather 
than  a railroad  war,  and  it  is  not  likely  soon  to  be  settled  except 
by  the  yielding,  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Vanderbilt,  of  what  must 
appear  to  every  fair  minded  person  an  untenable  position. 

“ There  are  three  great  trunk-lines  between  the  West  and  the 
Eastern  seaboard,  not  including  the  Erie,  which  seems  to  be  pas- 
sive in  the  contest.  These  are  the  New  York  Central,  running 
to  New  York;  the  Pennsylvania  Central,  to  Philadelphia,  and 
the  Baltimore  and  Ohio,  to  Baltimore.  The  two  latter  have  con- 
nection to  New  York  also. 

“ In  the  course  of  developments  lines  of  steamships  were  estab- 
lished between  Philadelphia  and  Baltimore  and  Europe  through 
the  agency  of  their  two  great  railroads  respectively,  and  at  the  same 
time  facilities  were  provided  for  connecting  the  railroads  with  the 
docks,  thus  abolishing  the  cost  of  transfer  through  the  cities,  which 
saving  equalled  the  cost  of  hauling  the  freight  100  miles  by  rail. 
This  secured  to  Philadelphia  and  Baltimore  superior  advantages 
over  New  York  in  forwarding  the  produce  of  the  West  to  the  con- 
suming markets  of  Europe,  and  that  saving  inured  to  the  benefit 
of  producers  and  consumers.  It  was  no  longer  necessary  to  ship 
produce  to  New  York  in  order  to  reach  a foreign  market,  or  sub- 
mit to  the  heavy  charges  for  hauling  and  transferring  property  in 
New  York.  Importing  merchants  also  began  to  discover  the  ad- 
vantages of  Philadelphia  and  Baltimore  as  ports  through  which 
they  might  bring  their  goods  from  Europe.  To  facilitate  this 
trade  Congress  amended  the  customs  laws  so  as  to  permit  direct 
importations.  Interior  merchants  are  thus  enabled  to  obtain  goods 
direct  from  Liverpool,  or  from  the  ports  of  France  and  Germany 
in  less  time  than  it  used  to  require  to  pass  them  through  the  New 
York  Custom-house;  hence  there  has  been  an  immense  increase 
in  the  business  of  direct  importations,  of  which  Philadelphia  and 


18 


Baltimore  have  had  a large  share,  and  the  monopoly  so  long  main- 
tained by  New  York  of  the  foreign  import  and  export  trade  has 
been  broken  up.  It  still  maintains  the  lion’s  share  of  the  busi- 
ness, but  has  been  forced  to  improve  its  system  of  transfers  and 
reduce  its  charges.  It  did  not  move  in  that  direction  until  it  saw 
its  foreign  trade  slipping  away  to  Philadelphia  and  Baltimore. 
Th  is  has  been  so  much  gained  for  the  West  through  the  com- 
petition offered  by  the  two  great  railroads  of  Philadelphia  and 
Baltimore. 

“But  Mr.  Vanderbilt  is  not  satisfied  with  the  situation,  and  he 
assumes  to  destroy  arbitrarily  the  advantages  which  his  rivals  have 
by  reason  of  their  geographical  position.  He  demands,  in  other 
words,  that  the  rates  of  freight  between  Cincinnati,  for  example, 
and  the  seaboard  shall  be  uniform,  regardless  of  distance. 

“The  New  York  Central  being  the  longest  route,  Mr.  Van- 
derbilt claims  the  right  to  fix  the  rates  not  only  to  New  York, 
but  to  Philadelphia  and  Baltimore  also.  In  other  words,  he  in- 
sists that  the  producers  of  the  West  shall  not  send  their  products 
to  tidewater  by  the  shortest  route  except  upon  the  condition  that 
they  shall  pay  the  cost  of  carrying  by  the  longest  route.  There 
never  was  a more  preposterous  proposition  submitted  to  the  pub- 
lic; yet  it  is  indorsed  by  the  New  York  Chamber  of  Commerce 
on  the  absurd  ground  that  the  New  York  Central  being  the 
richest  corporation,  it  should  be  permitted  to  dictate  terms  to  the 
other  roads,  and  assess  a tax  upon  the  West  to  make  up  for  the 
difference  against  it  by  reason  of  its  geographical  position.  Of 
course  the  business  men  of  Philadelphia,  Baltimore,  Cincinnati  and 
all  western  cities  would  oppose  the  proposition,  and  that,  too, 
with  great  vigor.” 

One  other  point  here  into  which  we  have  not  fully  entered  thus 
far.  The  average  rates  of  ocean  freight  from  New  York,  Phila- 
delphia and  Baltimore  during  the  years  1878  to  1881,  inclusive, 
will  be  found  upon  Statement  D.  attached.  The  average  rate  per 
sailing  vessels  was  about  the  same  from  New  York  and  Baltimore, 
but  the  rate  for  steamers  (which  take  the  great  bulk  of  grain  from 
New  York,)  was  ISf  cents  per  hundred  pounds  from  New  York, 
against  22t7q  cents  per  hundred  pounds  from  Baltimore.  Taking 
the  percentage  of  grain  shipped  from  the  two  cities  by  sailers  at 


19 


the  sail  rates,  and  by  steamers  at  the  steamer  rates,  we  find  that 
the  general  average  from  New  York  was  21^  cents  per  hundred 
pounds  against  Baltimore’s  average  of  25TVo8o  cents  per  hundred 
pounds,  showing  that  the  actual  rate  which  the  grain  exported 
from  New  York  paid  was  4t3q%  cents  per  hundred  pounds  less  than 
was  paid  on  that  exported  from  Baltimore. 

Before  concluding,  we  must  express  the  opinion  that  when  this 
matter  is  reduced  down  to  its  true  inwardness,  it  will  be  found  that 
the  New  York  trunk-lines  are  smarting  under  this  charge  of  3 
cents  per  hundred  pounds  for  free  delivery,  taken  part  of  it  out  of 
their  own  pockets  and  part  out  of  western  connections,  and  they 
find  it  insufficient  to  pay  the  bill.  Being  practically  already  under 
our  rates,  they  now  ask  for  a further  reduction  in  theirs  or  an 
advance  in  ours,  so  that  they  may  use  a little  more  on  free  delivery 
without  trenching  too  much  on  their  revenues,  and  then  call  the 
rate  uniform.  We  shall  find  further  that  New  York  mer- 
chants are  smarting  under  the  temerity  of  a vigorous  young  com- 
petitor which  has  presumed  to  trespass  upon  its  preserves , and  a 
cry  has  gone  out  from  Macedonia  for  help.  It  is  not  yet  proposed 
here  to  surrender  quite  all  to  New  York.  We  welcome  compet- 
ing lines,  and  we  have  never  sought  to  live  off  of  them  at  the 
expense  of  other  municipalities.  The  logic  of  this  new  demand 
must  be  that  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad  will  not  be  per- 
mitted to  stop  its  freight  here,  but  that  it  will  have  to  carry  it 
200  miles  farther  without  additional  compensation,  ignoring  our 
channel  to  the  sea,  deepened  to  a very  considerable  extent  at  our 
own  expense  to  float  the  largest  steamships,  that  these  and  sailing 
vessels  must  be  driven  away  empty  from  our  piers — empty  be- 
cause nothing  will  be  left  here  for  them  to  carry ; that  the  millions 
expended  upon  our  public  warehouses  must  be  regarded  as  thrown 
away  upon  gew-gaws  for  bats  and  owls — and  all  this  to  protect 
the  commerce  of  New  York ; but,  unfortunately,  to  destroy  ours. 
Nay,  gentlemen,  there  is  still  left  here  some  of  the  pluck  and  spirit 
of  those  heroes  who  more  than  fifty  years  ago  were  the  pioneers 
in  railway  building,  and  whose  keen  foresight  pictured  to  them 
the  advantages  which  Baltimore  would  reap  from  her  iron  high- 
ways. They  did  not  ask  help  from  New  York,  and  we  ask  none. 

Let  New  York  fight  it  out  on  its  own  resources  if  this  differen- 
tial rate  of  3 cents  per  hundred  pounds  is  not  satisfactory.  We 


20 


have  yielded  already  more  than  enough.  To  make  further  con- 
cession, to  succumb  when  life  is  demanded,  would  brand  us  as 
unworthy  and  cowardly  descendants  of  the  generation  which  has 
preceded  our  own. 

WM.  S.  YOUNG,  Chairman . 

Chas.  D.  Fisher, 

J.  C.  Vincent, 

D.  M.  Tate, 

E.  M.  SCHRYVER, 

Geo.  H.  Baer, 

F.  T.  Smith, 


Conunittee. 


21 


EXHIBIT  “D” 

Baltimore  Corn  and  Flour  Exchange  Report, 

Showing  Average  Bates  of  Freight  by  Sail  and  Steam  from  New 
York,  Philadelphia  and  Baltimore,  and  the  Differences  between 
the  Cities. 


SAIL  RATES. 

STEAM 

RATES. 

Year. 

New  York. 

Philadelphia. 

Baltimore. 

Year. 

New  York. 

Philadelphia 

Baltimore. 

1878 

6/10* 

5/91 

6/101 

1878 

71 

81 

8f 

1879 

5/5 

5/31 

5/-H 

1879 

61 

7 

61 

1880 

6/01 

4/10f 

5/ 

1880 

51 

61 

6| 

1881 

4/5* 

4/7 

4/6* 

1881 

41 

41 

5 

Four  Years... 

20/9§ 

20/** 

20/11x2 

Four  Years  ... 

23f 

261 

271 

Average 

~5/i*~ 

5/21 

Average 

~*tt 

a 9 
°T6- 

”611 

Average  per  Or. 
ia  Currency.. 

$1.24.8 

$1.23 

$1.23 

Average  in  cur- 
rency pr  60  lbs. 

Hf 

13* 

18f 

Average  perlOO 
Pounds 

.26 

.25.625 

.26.042 

Average  perlOO 
Pounds 

.19.375 

21.875 

22.708 

■ts’U 

nr  ft 

/ifs 

n/s 

/3?3 

General  Average  computed  by  Percentages  of  Sail  and  Steam 
Shipments. 


Percentages. 

New  York. 

Percentages. 

Philadelphia. 

Percentages. 

Baltimoie. 

Sail,  26 

26X26 

.0676 

Sail,  71.67 

25625X71.67 

183654 

Sail,  81 

.26042X81 

21104 

Steam,  74 

19.375X  74 

143375 

Steam,  21.33 

21875X21.33 

.046659 

Steam,  19 

.22708X  19 

.04314 

Gen’l  Average. 

Cts.  per  100  lbs. 
.210975 

.230313 

.25418 

/z-h  nfa  /sfy 

Difference — New  York  and  Baltimore — 4.32  cents  per  100  lbs. 

“ “ “ Philadelphia — 1 .93  cents  per  100  lbs. 


.Philadelphia  and  Baltimore — 2.38  cents  per  100  lbs. 


“ Exhibit  A” — Average  Prices  of  No.  2 Red  Winter  Wheat. 


1878. 


New  York. 

Baltimore.  | 

N Y.  over 
Balt. 

Balt  over 

N.  Y. 

January. 

138* 

185* 

8* 

>k| 

CD 

February. 

134 

181* 

2* 

® S5 

March. 

133* 

129| 

8f 

© p 

April. 

185* 

131* 

May. 

127* 

126* 

0* 

o ^ 
^ © 

June. 

112 

not 

* 

July. 

109| 

104* 

5* 

S'S 

August. 

108 

103* 

4* 

S?  to 

September. 

107f 

106f 

1 

3 °*° 

October. 

102f 

101* 

i* 

o 

3 

November. 

107 

104* 

2* 

e-t- 

er* 

December. 

108f 

104f 

8f 

CO 

cc|co 

1878. 

118f 

H5if 

2* 

1 

January. 

109* 

1 05f 

4* 

>K! 

<3  © 

February. 

llOf 

107* 

2* 

© 2 
•-j  2. 

March. 

115* 

114* 

If 

cr*^ 

April. 

H3* 

HI* 

2* 

© p 

May. 

116* 

1 14* 

0 3 
* 8 

Sj  © 

June. 

117* 

116* 

0* 

^ 3 

3_  CD 

July. 

1151 

113* 

2f 

August. 

109* 

108 

If 

© to 

September. 

1171 

107* 

o* 

3? 

October. 

14l| 

139* 

1* 

o 

3 

November. 

1421 

139* 

1* 

3* 

December. 

1551 

150f 

5* 

CD 

CO 

1879. 

122* 

119* 

2» 

January. 

148| 

144 

4f 

< © 

February. 

148* 

146* 

1* 

© P 
<i  i 

March. 

146* 

143* 

2* 

April. 

183* 

129| 

4* 

© p 

o < 

May. 

132* 

129f 

8* 

l-D  (D 
<«  -i 

J une. 

125* 

125| 

0 3 

UT6 

2.  p 

J uly. 

H5* 

in* 

4 

£ ® 

August. 

108* 

107| 

o* 

2 to 
2 

September. 

106* 

105* 

0f 

3 • 

o 

October. 

114* 

H2* 

9 i 

Z16 

..  ... 

3 

November. 

121* 

118| 

24|- 

*16 

Ep 

December. 

120* 

H6* 

8* 

CO 

CD|cn 

1880. 

126* 

124* 

2* 

1881.  January. 

117* 

116* 

1 1 1 
JT6 

February. 

H7* 

115* 

2* 

March. 

122* 

119 

3* 

April. 

125* 

121* 

3* 

May. 

126* 

125* 

6* 

June. 

126* 

125 

i " 

July. 

127* 

1241* 

9 9 

August. 

135* 

134* 

1 9 

1T6 

September. 

147 

143* 

3* 



October. 

150* 

146 

4f 

November. 

141* 

138 

315 

1 (5 

December. 

141  1 
141tv 

137* 

3* 

1881. 

| m!ao 

i CO 

128* 

2* 

1882.  January. 

144J 

UOft 

4* 

February. 

18B* 

13  V* 

3* 

< CD 
© » 
•I 

cn 

© p 

O -1 
►-*J  CD 

< 3 

E- 

2 to 


Average  Prices  of  Western  Mixed  Corn, 


New  York. 

Baltimore. 

N.  Y.  over 
Balt. 

Balto.  over 
N.  Y. 

1878.  January. 

621 

56* 

6* 

P>  Kj 

<3  CD 

February. 

59* 

55* 

4* 

CD  fo 
<s  <2. 

March. 

55| 

53f 

2* 

cn'o 

April. 

54-7- 

52* 

n 

CD  p 
O <1 

May. 

61 

49f 

n 

"l  CD 

June. 

441 

46* 

* 

3 3 

rC’fro 

July. 

47* 

47* 



o* 

August. 

491 

49* 

o* 

3 o»i 

September. 

50 

51* 

1* 

B*) 

October. 

47* 

A 7 1 

0* 

3 

November. 

461 

47* 

Of 

? 

December. 

47* 

45f 

If 

CO 

►Oil-* 

1878. 

51* 

50* 

1* 

1879.  January. 

February. 

March. 

April. 

May. 

June. 

July. 

August. 

September. 

October. 

November. 

December. 


1880.  January. 

February. 

March. 

April. 

May. 

June. 

July. 

August. 

September. 

October. 

November. 

December. 


1881.  January. 

February. 

March. 

April. 

M ay. 

June. 

July. 

August. 

September. 

October. 

November. 

December. 


1882.  January. 

February. 


1879. 


1880. 


m 

60* 

68f 

53* 

53* 

52* 

48  * 

49* 

51 


65* 


57 


^yTF 

514 

48tV 

60* 

51* 

53* 

68* 


3* 

3| 

0 .} 

oT  s 

UTF 

04 


01 


1881, 


47 

43f 

31 

m 

44f 

2f 

45* 

441 

43f 

421 

1 1 1 

F 

1 8 

45* 

43f 

43f 

431 

Hi 

44f 

441 

Of 

4* 

46 

0* 

49f 

5* 

2* 

58* 

60f 

2* 

59* 

• 57f 

2* 

64 

63* 

o* 

■ 49* 

WhH 

00 

Off 

56* 

53f 

14 

1 8 

56* 

54  f 

9 9 
*TF 

59* 

67 

9 1 
"TF 

59* 

57* 

2* 

58* 

68* 

Of 

67 

56* 

o* 

56* 

66* 

Of 

65* 

65 1 

0* 

72  f 

691 

2| 

7* 

70* 

°* 

68* 

66* 

* 

691 

66* 

911 

“IF 

62{ 

61* 

** 

69* 

68*  1 

* 

— 

67* 

66f 

1* 

^*1 


3.5 

CD  ® 

**  O 

3 o;|t0 

5 Mtn 


| | 

I* 

CD  ® 
O <J 
© 
3 3 
B’w 
5.  ® 


